roaring
The other day while reading my daily quota of Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary, I encountered the entry on Rorarius, and I spent a few minutes rolling that name around, batting it to and fro, and making nonsense of it. The main draw of the entry, I should mention, is the discussion of whether animals have souls and, if so, what sort of soul they might have. Frankly, I did not think much of it, because I am reading Bayle for Spinoza, and because the question of souls is, well, animated rather than illuminating. I expected to forget Rorarius immediately, except for the amusement I felt at his name, and sketchy outlines of the translator’s selection. Then he showed up – indeed, Bayle’s entry on Rorarius showed up – in Leibniz’s Monadology, and now I must reshuffle my mental index cards and sort them afresh and reconsider whether I in fact wish to reconsider at greater length and with greater attention the question of whether animals in fact could possibly have souls. A vexed question.